CL 
That Kew rule is not founded on any S$ of the international botanical 
laws of the Paris Congress neither on $ 48, as James Dritten supposes, for 
S 48 refers only to correct citations of authors to species that have been put 
into another genus without changing the specifie name, nor on $ 57 or 62, which 
require strict priority. In the cited dispute there was sometimes confounded 
the wrong citation of authors with the illegal naming of translated species. If 
any species is put into another genus it may be done in the following manner: 
(I aecept the example of the dispute and suppose Castalia to be a just genus- 
name, although this name is no more to be kept up.) 
A. Castalia odorata Greene ( Nymphaea odorata L.). That may be 
called: a legal denomination of a biauthorical species. 
B. Castalia pudica Salisb. ( Nymphaea odorata L.). 'That is an illegal 
denomination of a biauthorica] species. 
Abbreviating that we get: 
1. Castalia odorata Greene (L.. That is the only correct biautho- 
rical citation. By abbreviating more, we get: 
2. Castalia odorata Greene. "This manner is ordered by the inter- 
national laws against the following sub 3 and 4 — case 1 being always allowed 
—., but it is too short, giving no reference to ihe first description and de 
scriber of the species. [t is also an improper premium to those, who like to 
wantonly change genera limits or to establish small genera. 
Most naturalists (zoologists and botanists; cfr. N. L. Britton in Journal 
of Bot. 1888 p. 293/4) considering the principle to take the species-name with 
the first description and its author more important, and opposing in the mean 
time the illegal denominations or to prevent them, write therefore in our example 
as sub 3 or 4: 
3. Castalia odorata (L.) Greene. That kind of author-citation would 
be right, if it were not praetieally misleading; because most botanists like to 
shorten all author-quotations, so that we get: 
4. Castalia odorata (L.). A false author-eitation, often used by modesty 
or by negligence or by fear of responsibility; it is therefore a very unfit and 
doubtful modesty to omit the own name in such cases; this manner causes much 
confusion. Against this wrong author-citation, which is nearly a bibliographical 
falsifieation, opposed in the quoted discussion Asa Gray and DeCandolle; it 18 
strietlly against $ 48 of the international laws. 
5. Castalia pudica Salisb. is put in accordance to the renewed Kew 
rule, and an abbreviation of Castalia pudica Salisb. (Nymphaea odorata L.), 
but not allowed by the international botanical laws. By this rule the first 
describer of a species is put purposely — with few exceptions — in oblivion 
and the arranger appears like detecter. 
'The Americans called that manner ,a kind of piracy*. It troubles the 
memory and synonymy very much, if the same species had been brought by 
and by in 2— 7 or more genera with changed species-names at every genus 
translation; it gives no reference to the first legal publication of the species 
and ean even more lead to wanton changes of genera names and limits than 
the manner sub 2. All in all we may say of that rule: No good law must 
bear in its heart the spring of corruption. English botanists did not invent 
that rule, but may leave it soon. 
I prefer Nr. 1 as the only correct biauthorical citation, giving refe 
and justice to both descriptions and both authors, not misleading to 
author-quotation and also imputing to nobody the appearance of having dete 
rence 
false 
cted 
